From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

Peabody Trust (202348571)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202348571

Peabody Trust

27 June 2025


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration,’ for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports about damp and mould in the property.
    2. Decant accommodation.
    3. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord, a housing association, which started in 2009. The property is described as a 2-bedroom flat. The resident said she has physical health issues. The landlord said it had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
  2. The resident complained on 28 January 2024 about damp and mould and unresolved repairs following a survey conducted in April 2023. She said the ongoing problems had caused a deterioration of her health.
  3. We wrote to the landlord on 11 June 2024 and asked it to respond to the stage 1 complaint. It responded on 18 June 2024 and apologised for the inconvenience caused. The landlord also said it would arrange a survey of the property to decide on the works needed. It also offered £450 as compensation for the distress and inconvenience in its handling of the repair and time and trouble for its complaints handling.
  4. The resident raised a stage 2 complaint on 30 June 2024. She asked the landlord to complete the repairs and review the compensation offered because it did not reflect the:
    1. Extent of the distress, inconvenience and time and trouble incurred.
    2. Additional costs incurred and damage to personal belongings.
    3. Loss of use of rooms.
    4. Impact on her physical and mental health.
  5. The landlord carried out the survey to the property on 13 August 2024. The inspection report noted extensive works were required to the bedrooms, bathroom, kitchen, and hallway. This included removal and reinstallation of thermal board, mould wash treatment, and redecoration works. It also arranged hotel accommodation for the resident which started on 11 October 2024, and offered subsistence payment to cover the period she was in hotel accommodation.
  6. The landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint on 27 November 2024 and apologised for the exceptional delays experienced by the resident. It revised the compensation to £1400 for the distress, inconvenience and time and trouble incurred in its overall handling of the case.

Events after the complaints process was exhausted

  1. On 4 December 2024 the landlord noted that most works had been completed.
  2. The resident advised us between December 2024 and February 2025 that:
    1. The landlord was not communicating with her, and she was finding it difficult and expensive living in a hotel.
    2. The hotel cancelled her booking on 6 December 2024 which caused severe distress and inconvenience as the property was not yet fit to move into.
    3. She received a phone call from her son while at work, that the hotel had asked him to leave and they threatened to call the police if he did not vacate the room.
    4. As she was at work, she had to make emergency arrangements for family members to attend the hotel to assist her son in moving their belongings.
    5. She lost a lot of their belongings stored in the booth of their car as it was broken into.
    6. She incurred time and trouble in trying to get the landlord to arrange alternative accommodation. This impacted her health, her daily living activities and caused a high level of inconvenience.
    7. The landlord made another booking, but she had to wait at the bus-stop with her son on one occasion (for 3 hours) when they had to switch hotels.
    8. The decant experience impacted her son’s wellbeing negatively and affected his education.
  3. The resident advised on 18 February 2025 that the damp and mould had been resolved and she had returned to the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman notes the resident’s concerns that she had been experiencing damp and mould in the property since 2009. While she advised that she had previously raised complaints about the matter, we have not seen evidence of this. Also, the resident referred the matter to our Service in March 2024 several years after the reported incident had occurred.
  2. Due to the time lapsed, we have considered events that occurred within 12 months of the resident’s formal complaint dated 28 January 2024. This is because resident’s are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
  3. We also acknowledge the resident’s concerns that her and her son’s health were impacted by the delays during the complaints process. This Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causations of, or liability for, impact on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim. We will consider distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused due to the situation reported by the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould in the property.

  1. This Service’s spotlight report on damp and mould published in October 2021 recommends that landlords should ensure their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue.
  2. The landlord’s damp and mould policy sets out that:
    1. A damp home is not enjoyable and can pose a serious risk to health and safety and can also lead to longer term structural problems.
    2. It is determined to tackle this issue and are taking a proactive approach to address damp and mould in its homes.
    3. It takes into account the effect that damp, mould and condensation have on residents and prioritise work to tackle this.
  3. From our review of the evidence the landlord accepted there were exceptional delays in its handling of the damp and mould reports.
  4. Although the landlord provided a copy of the repairs log for the property, it did not fully cover the period the resident complained about, dates of appointments, outcome from inspections and any repairs completed. The resident expressed similar concerns about the landlord’s record keeping in her complaint dated 28 January 2024. She said the landlord was often unable to provide answers to her queries, as it did not have records of repairs logged, appointments agreed with its contractors and on certain occasions did not know which contractor was dealing with her repairs. This would have caused her some frustration.
  5. While the landlord has not provided sufficient records of the history of the case (from April 2023) it did not dispute the issue had been unresolved for several months. It apologised in its stage 1 response dated 18 June 2024 that works had not been completed following a survey previously carried out to assess damp and mould. It demonstrated some learning, as it assured the resident that a full survey would be completed to determine the scope of work required. This was reasonable.
  6. Despite the landlord’s assurances, it did not keep the resident updated on what it was doing. This led to the escalation of her complaint on 30 June 2024. She said no one had contacted her to arrange a survey. It was after this that the landlord followed up the survey referral and confirmed a date for 13 August 2024. Failure to follow up with the matter proactively would have caused the resident frustration and uncertainty.
  7. The resident told us on 4 September 2024 that the situation had not improved, as the landlord had not provided any updates since its inspection on 13 August 2024. She said no plans had been communicated with her or dates for the repairs and was concerned about fitting the repairs around her work commitments. The resident said her concerns were not being taken seriously. This shows the continued uncertainty around the repairs, and poor communication, caused the resident further distress and inconvenience.
  8. The resident expressed in several emails to the landlord that the condition of the property was adversely affecting her health. She said she had lung damage, which her doctor warned could be made worse by the presence of damp in the property. The landlord did not prioritise these repairs or consider any risks to the resident’s health and safety from the continued exposure to black mould in accordance with its damp and mould policy. This was not appropriate.
  9. While the landlord’s damp and mould policy highlights the importance of arranging temporary accommodation for residents, in critical situations where there is a risk to their health and safety, we have not seen evidence that the landlord considered this in a timely manner. It missed opportunities to put things right, which meant the resident experienced the loss of enjoyment of her home (also mentioned in the resident’s complaint on 30 June 2024).
  10. At the time of her complaint (28 January 2024) the resident said she had lived in unsuitable and unhealthy conditions for 9 months. It took a further 9 months before the landlord considered alternative temporary accommodation to facilitate the repairs. This was not appropriate.
  11. The landlord learned from its errors and arranged temporary accommodation for the resident on 10 October 2024. While it anticipated the repairs would take approximately 5 days, the works were unfinished for several weeks after the resident was moved into a hotel with her son. Its communication with the resident concerning the works and cause of delay did not improve. She complained in November 2024 that she and her son had experienced a severe level of distress and incurred time and trouble in constantly chasing for updates.
  12. The landlord apologised through its stage 2 response dated 27 November 2024. It said:
    1. It was clear the delays in completing the work had caused significant inconvenience to the resident.
    2. While the works were in progress its contractors identified unforeseen structural issues, including deeper layers of damp ingress that required additional treatment and repairs. This caused the extended delays.
    3. The works were in their final stages, and it anticipated it would be completed by 6 December 2024, with post-inspection and snagging to follow shortly after.
    4. It had advised its contractors and staff about the importance of communication and managing its residents’ expectations to ensure that they are updated on any works being undertaken.
    5. All feedback would be passed to the repairs team for training and process review to improve how it deals with similar cases in the future.
  13. The landlord offered the resident £1000 (revised offer) as redress for the level of service experienced and the inconvenience caused due to the length of time it took to complete the repairs. This is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy for severe failures that has occurred, which was significant in terms of the event itself and its duration causing serious short or long-term impact. This is also in line with our remedies guidance for severe maladministration for service failures that have had a significant impact on the resident. Therefore, we have not awarded additional compensation.
  14. However, we have found service failure in the landlord’s overall handling of this case due to the issues identified with its records keeping. The landlord did not recognise this as a failing in its response or set out any learning from it. We have not made a separate order for this, as the landlord has recently provided evidence of its self-assessment against our spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM).
  15. The landlord advised us that the repairs in the property have been resolved, and the resident moved back into the property in January 2025.

The landlord’s handling of decant accommodation

  1. The landlord’s decant policy states that:
    1. It will provide a food allowance to those staying in hotel accommodation where they do not have access to a kitchen of up to £20 per person aged 13 and over per day, and up to £10 per child aged under 13 per day.
    2. Depending on individual circumstances, it may reimburse residents for other costs, such as laundry, phone calls, pet-related costs, and additional travel costs. This will be paid as a prescribed allowance or paid in arrears, on production of receipts.
    3. It will aim to minimise the disruption and inconvenience of moving people from their home.
    4. If emergency works take longer than originally anticipated, it may cancel any hotel booking made and offer alternative suitable temporary accommodation.
  2. The landlord followed its decant policy in offering the resident alternative accommodation. It gave the resident the option of choosing self-contained accommodation or hotel accommodation (with subsistence payment). She chose hotel accommodation for herself and her 17-year-old son.
  3. The resident complained around 16 November 2024 that she had not received the subsistence payment as promised. She said:
    1. The ongoing situation with the repairs had impacted her relationship with her son.
    2. Living together in the same room was inconvenient.
    3. Due to their ages they both needed their own space.
  4. When the landlord became aware that the repairs would take longer than previously anticipated, it failed to assess if the continued living arrangements would be suitable for the resident in line with its decant policy. This was not appropriate.
  5. The landlord apologised in its stage 2 response dated 27 November 2024. It explained that the initial booking was made for 5 days from 11 October to 16 October 2024, but it extended it for several weeks, to minimise any disruption to the resident. It said it anticipated the repairs would be completed by 6 December 2024. It also offered her subsistence payment broken down as:
    1. £20 meal allowance per adult per day (65 days from 10 October to 13 December 2024).
    2. £25 laundry allowance per week (for 9 weeks).
    3. £25 travel allowance per week (for 9 weeks).
  6. This came to a total of £3,130.00 which the landlord said it would pay by 29 November 2024. It also assured the resident that:
    1. It had extended the hotel booking until (13 December 2024) to avoid further inconvenience and to allow sufficient time for the completion of works and reoccupation of the property.
    2. It recognised that the delay in completing the works and the extended duration of the decant had caused significant inconvenience to the resident and her son.
    3. Arrangements had been made to facilitate the resident’s return to the property immediately after the completion of works. This included finalising any redecoration to restore the property to a habitable standard.
    4. It would remain in contact with the resident throughout this period up until the issue was resolved.
  7. We acknowledge the steps taken by the landlord to put things right. Its apology and actions agreed to monitor the case were in accordance with the relevant policies. However it would also have been appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation to put right the ‘significant inconvenience’ it accepted had been caused to her and her son. 
  8. We have also seen from the evidence that the landlord failed to follow up the actions agreed. It did not extend the resident’s hotel booking until 13 December 2024. The resident said the property was not ready to move into on 6 December 2024 when her hotel booking was cancelled, so the landlord had to arrange a booking into another hotel. This caused the resident and her son significant distress, frustration, inconvenience and time and trouble.
  9. Due to the above, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the decant accommodation. This is because:
    1. The landlord failed to extend the hotel booking to 13 December 2024 as agreed, which led to the booking being cancelled without any prior warning.
    2. The resident incurred time and trouble in chasing up the landlord to arrange alternative accommodation for her family.
    3. The landlord did not keep the resident updated or arrange a smooth transfer back into the property as promised.
    4. The resident and her son experienced a profound level of distress and inconvenience due to the sudden cancellation of the accommodation.
  10. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £500 as redress for the distress and inconvenience caused. This is in line with our remedies guidance for maladministration for failures that have had a significant impact on the resident.
  11. Finally, we noted the resident explained that she was decanted until 25 December 2024. The resident believes she should be paid extra subsistence payment since the decant period was longer. Under the circumstances, if the decant period extended beyond 13 December 2024, we would reasonably expect the landlord to cover the subsistence payment for these additional dates.
  12. To support in the resolution of this matter, a recommendation has been included below requesting that the landlord should consider if any additional subsistence payment is required due to the extension of the decant period in December 2024. If the landlord considers that additional payment is required, it must pay this to the resident in accordance with its policy within a reasonable timeframe.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

  1. The landlord’s complaints process has 2 stages. It would aim to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and response to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  2. The landlord delayed responding to the resident’s stage 1 complaint raised on 28 January 2024. It is concerning that it did not reply until she escalated the matter to us. The resident advised us on 29 March 2024 that she had lost faith and trust in the landlord. Following our intervention, the landlord responded to the complaint on 18 June 2024, approximately 5 months after the complaint was raised. This was not appropriate.
  3. The landlord apologised for the delay in responding to the stage 1 complaint, but it failed to learn from the error. Its stage 2 response was also delayed. The resident raised the stage 2 complaint on 30 June 2024, but it responded on 27 November 2024 (approximately 21 weeks). This was far outside the 20 working days timescales published in its complaints policy. We have seen that the delays caused the resident some distress, frustration, time and trouble and uncertainty. The landlord’s handling of the complaint also delayed the resident in bringing the complaint to this Service. This was not appropriate.
  4. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience caused by its handling of the complaint. It said feedback would be passed to the relevant teams for training and service improvement. It also offered the resident £400 for the time and trouble incurred by the resident due to its handling of the complaint. This was in line with its compensation policy for extensive failure to follow the complaints policy or procedure, or to investigate a complaint correctly, causing a significant impact on the complainant.
  5. However, the landlord did not address all the points raised by the resident in her complaint. She asked the landlord to consider compensation for personal belongings damaged due to damp and for the detriment to her health. We recognise that the landlord would not consider these matters under its complaints policy and would normally direct them to its insurance team to assess.
  6. The landlord has not shown it referred the matter appropriately or that it offered advice to the resident on how to pursue the matter. This is not in adherence to our complaints handling code, which advises that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint.
  7. Our complaint handling code also advises landlords to ensure that any remedy proposed is followed through to completion. We have seen that the landlord did not closely monitor some of the actions agreed at stage 2 of the complaints process. This caused the resident significant inconvenience.
  8. Due to the above, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional amount of £200 to address this.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of decant accommodation.
  3. In accordance with the paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident the amount of £5220 (this includes the £4520 offered on 27 November 2024). This is broken down as:
      1. £1000 for the distress and inconvenience due to its handling of the damp and mould.
      2. £500 for the distress and inconvenience due to its handling of decant accommodation.
      3. £600 (including the £400 previously offered) for the time and trouble for its handling of the associated complaints.
      4. The landlord may deduct from this total any compensation it has already paid in relation to this complaint.
    3. Provide to this Service, a copy of the post-inspection report as agreed in its stage 2 response, confirming all works have been satisfactorily completed.
    4. Contact the resident to discuss her claim for damages. Offer advice in writing on how to make a claim if she wishes to pursue the matter.
  2. Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Review its handling of decant accommodation in this case to determine what went wrong.
    2. Set out any learning and measures it will put in place to improve the process for its residents.
  3. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with above orders.
  4. Following our recent investigations of similar cases where we found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling it advised us that it has undertaken significant improvements to its complaints function. The landlord said it continues to review this regularly to ensure it meets with best practice and is aligned to the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code. It said some of the improvements made include:
    1. Dedicated resources to manage the volume of complaints.
    2. A new team that handles all new requests for complaints to be logged within the 5 working days target.
    3. Regular training on all aspects of complaint handling and the timeframes for responding to complaints.
    4. A process to ensure repairs that remain outstanding, after a stage two response has been provided, are monitored and progressed by a dedicated team.
  5. Based on the above information we are not making any further orders regarding the landlord’s complaint handling approach. However, the landlord should take all relevant learning points from this case into account in its overall reviews of complaint handling.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider if any additional subsistence payment is required due to the extension of the decant period in December 2024. If the landlord considers that additional payment is required, it must pay this to the resident in accordance with its policy within a reasonable timeframe.